The Nature of Mutations

You can change the genetics of a fly and make its halters full fledged wings, but none of this gave the organism something novel or new, it just changed the area from where it is suppose to be to where it was not suppose to be. This is change, not evolution.Word games. By your own definitions, there's no biological novelty, because every biological structure we observe is simply an improvement on prior structures.Wings are legs in a different shape. The complex human eye has only minor improvements from simpler eyes. There's no structure you can name that is anything but a minor improvement in a prior structure.Evolution doesn't require large amounts of novelty, simply minor improvements over time. If you're trying to argue against evolution because it's impossible for a bacteria to give birth to a human, you're arguing a straw man.

No, they wouldn't. Where do you come up with that illogical conclusion?Illogical? That's the definition of the word "supernatural" - entites above and beyond nature. If they can regularly take part in nature, then they can't be above natureFirst off, Frog, just because you have never experienced them doesn't mean that they don't exist. If you choose to live your life by what you can and cannot see, you will never mature.To the contrary, I find it immature to resort to supersitious, supernatural nonsense to explain things when a natural explanation could just as easily be usedI've never seen supernatural events. I've never met anyone who has. Why should I accept a proposition so diamterically opposed to my own worldview and that of thinkers I respect simply on your say soSecondly, plenty of people have gathered evidence of supernatural activity. Whether you choose to believe it or not is another story, but in the end, reality will always win.Let's hear it. In every case I'm familiar with, so-called "supernatural" powers were revealed to be no more than coincidence, clever tricks, or simply wishful thinking. I'm not familiar with your supernatural "evidence", and I suspect you don't have any beyond hearsay and fictionYou're right about one thing. Reality exists in and of itself, beyond our mental models of it. My thought process continually checks theory vs. reality via experimentation. Does yours?|1.1.1.1

quote:

---

M: wrong, the entire issue is the effect of the mutation. If a C to T transition in the Dloop of mitochondria has absolutely no effect on mtDNA replication, mitochondrial gene expression, etc. then the mutation is irrelevant as it has no effect on the organism. It is neutral with regards to evolution. However, any mutation that under a specific environmental condition ehances and indivduals chance at reproduction has a better chance of becoming more frequent. So not all mutations are deleterious...what does it matter if a pseudogene has a C or a T at a given position?

---

If I am understanding you correctly, you are talling about a neutral substitution, correct? In which case, it has no effect, and therefore I have no argument against this. My argument is against mutations that do have an affect.

quote:

---

Thus, the source of heritable variation IS genetic. That is not a strictly evolutionary concept as all genetics relies on this.

---

I agree. I must also state that variation is not an evolutionary concept at all. It was adopted by evolutionary theorists in an attempt to save their theory, but not even that has helped them except to the non-thinking masses (not directed at you).

quote:

---

Population genetics and evolution are the same thing. That you deny this suggests you are either poorly informed about evolutionary biology or someone has purposefully mislead you...

​

Here..from a basic biology textbook for your edification

​

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

---

Again, if we define evolution simply as "change", then yes, population genetics is "evolution". But evolution is not simply change (playing word games again), it is about speciation. One organism giving rise to another different kind of organism altogether, and this has never been demonstrated as even a possibility. Every time this is addressed, it is addressed as speculation, and most often in "matter-of-fact" wording when the fact is not codified, nor can be.

quote:

---

PLG:
Pure beneficial mutations are assumed, why? Because without mutations you have no variant alleles. Why does evolution need variant alleles? Because variants are differences between organisms.

​

M: You were doing a bit better up to this point...

---

What I meant was that the gene pool of a species has boundaries which the species cannot go beyond. This has been known and understood now for nearly 5,000 - 10,000 years of animal husbandry and breeding. As I understood from one of Mayr's books (I can't remember which one right off the top of my head), he acknowledged this fact and then went on to say that mutation originates variation which can push the species over the old gene pool limitations, opening the way for speciation and evolutionary furtherance.To date, I have not read any articles demonstrating that variation can add novelties to a species gene pool that can take it beyond those limits. Do you know of any?

quote:

---

PLG: But variation does not give rise speciation...since when has one creature ever been observed to change into another creature?

​

M: one creature does not turn into another....Lamark was wrong.

​

However, variation in populations does give rise to new species and this has been observed in the case of bacteria, cichlids, and in various plants among other things.

---

OK, so here we go. The bacteria was still a bacteria, was it not? Then it did not speciate. Same goes for cichlids and all of the plants that have been shown to me thus far. The criteria on which the so-called "speciation" must be examined, and in most cases there are so many special circumstances as to warrant a "recall" in my mind.And when I say one species turning into another, I mean one species giving rise to another. I know one animal does not turn into another, so please do not insult my intelligence. This is the problem with evolutionary theory in general. Generalities are spoken when the issue is to avoid the specifics, and specifics are spoken when the issue is to avoid the generalites. Darwin did not wirte a thesis on change for change's sake, but in addressing speciation, therefore addressing evolution as speciation, not change. So why do modern evolutionists cling to "change" being evolution, when evolution is supposed to be all about explaining the origin of species? Genetic change does not give credence to evolution without definite, one-sided evidence, which it does not have.

quote:

---

PLG:
So, we have to come up with a definition of speciation that demonstrates evolution is a reality, and so Mayr has...in his own mind, anyway. However, none of these examples change one creature into another, they only demonstrate variation.

​

M: Again, your logic is flawed and also demonstrates you have no grasp of the scientific method.

---

Not so. I was saying that Mayr went outside the scientific method, I am saying that he was not doing science, but making up stories to suit his percieved needs in order to keep the theory alive.

quote:

---

PLG:In short, unless you have a genetic mechanism that can add to a single celled organism, that in time will build blue-prints for arms, legs, sex organs, other organs, a head, mouth, fingers, etc....

​

M: Actually there is...they are called Hox genes...I can't believe you have never heard of this

---

I have heard of it, and you are missing one small detail. You cannot claim hox genes unless you are going to give some kind of evidence that they, too, can come about from nothing down the evolutionary pathway. This is typical, "matter-of-fact" statements such as the claw of this certain crab was modified from mouth parts in its ancestors. This is not a scientific explanation of anything, it is, instead, a matter-of-fact statement based upon the opinion of the writer, based upon the unconfirmed assumption that evolution is a fact of nature.I will say it again, and then I have to go for now. What needs to be done is the assumption of evolution needs to be dropped from science altogether - every reference to evolutionary theory - and then begin again from scratch. From step one, and then have the process heavily monitored so that it only sticks with the facts. New terminology would undoubtedly be developed, and some old terminology would undoubtedly be dropped.But I am satisfied that if this was done, there would be no scientific arguments for or against evolutionary theory, the debate would be over.Gotta go for now, I tried to answer as many as I could get to in as little time as possible.Greetings!!!

Perhaps, because only evolutionary biologists (and genetic programmers) have experience working with systems that have function without design.You've dismissed my argument without showing how it is flawed. If I can use a screwdriver to pound in a nail, does that mean it was designed with the purpose of a hammer? Ask a tool maker and find out how an object or system can have functions it was not designed with. Where am I wrong in this? If you can have a designed object with functions it wasn't designed with, why not have function without any design whatsoever?Your argument ad populum ("Only evolutionists make this argument") carries no weight. Why couldn't we be in the correct minority, as you have argued you are? Didn't I say it was built piece by piece? Clearly your reading comprehension could use some work. Irreducible complexity is a bankrupt argument from ignorance. Totally irrellevant. Of course not. The point was, human genitals don't fit together perfectly - only just good enough. As predicted by the evolutionary model. Why? what mechanism prevents it?All sexual metazoan organisms have gonads of some kind. They all work the same way, basically - getting sperm and eggs together. The complexity of gonads increases with the complexity of the organism, as well as with regard to the environment of the organism. All vertabrates have essentially the same genitals. Humans are vertebrates.Do you dispute these facts? If not, why then isn't it reasonable to assume that human genitals aren't the natural development from the genitals of our ancestors?It is an assumption, a "just-so" story to explain a certain structure. Genitals don't fossilize well. But just because it might be impossible to confirm any particular narrative of the development of genitals doesn't mean we can't apply evolutionary concepts to arrive at an explanitory story. The story isn't evidence of evolution, of course - and is never presented as such. It's simply a way to apply the general model to a specific question. Why? You find it inappropriate to apply a general model to answer a question like "How might genitals have evolved?" I'm not trying to present this as evidence of evolution itself, but rather as evidence of evolution's great explanitory power. You, on the other hand, are just moving the goalposts.

quote:

---

I have already posted about population genetics, they mean nothing to evolution.

---

Now where I have seen this before?

Well, it didn't make any sense the first time I read it, either...

Straw man argument. Evolution doesn't predict "hopeful monsters". It predicts that populations speciate, not individuals. This is perhaps your greatest misunderstanding of the theory. Populations speciate. It happens all the time, with plenty of recorded data which can be supplied if you like. That's why population genetics is at the heart of evolutionary theory. It's not a smokescreen; it's a great framework for explaining data. Why should there be? As I've stated there's no true biological novelty beyond the protein level. I challenge you to find some. You're using a definition at odds with the biological concept of species. You might want to look up what that is. There's thousands (millions?) of different species of bacteria. Why do you dispute this? Because we use the word "bacteria" for all of them? More word games. By your logic I can lump all non-autotropic, moblie life into one big species called "animals".Look up the biological species concept. Get back to us. Why bother? When all your objections to the theory can be ascribed to your own miisunderstanding of it.The theories of science are put to use as soon as they are created. That's the scientific process. Clearly you've failed to distinguish (as scientists do) between evidence for a theory and that theory's application as an explanitory framework. The thing is, the general use and utility of a theory to explain other data is evidence that it's a pretty good theory. I know that seems kind of weird - how can you use a theory you haven't totally confirmed to explain stuff? - but that's how science is done. If we waited around for all our theories to be totally confirmed before we put them to use, we'd never get anything done.BTW you still haven't explained my data with an alternative to an evolutionary framework. Of course, since there aren't any alternative scientific theories you might find that difficult.

Dr.James Crow, geneticist/evolutionary biologist: "As for population genetics, I think it is important and in fact is at the center of our current understanding of evolution. Of course, evolution as a historical occurrence was quite well established before population genetics became established, ca 1930If you regard evolution as the history of form and function, population genetics has played a relatively minor role. But if you ask about the mechanisms of evolution, population genetics has been most importantPopulation genetics, building on the foundation of Mendelian heredity, has provided a quantitative theory of how natural selection, mutation, random drift, and population structure determine how evolutionary changes occur. Recently, population genetics along with molecular biology has demonstrated the way evolution occurs at the nucleotide levelIn short, I disagree with Dr. Davison. Contrary to what he says, I believe (along with most evolutionists) that population genetics has provided the mechanistic basis for evolutionary change. Therefore, rather than being irrelevant, it is at the center of current evolutionary theory.

PG: As far as education goes (some of you are going to love this, so I hesitate even saying it), I have studied biology texts but never had the money nor the time to take courses.FK: Believe it or not, most of us had already figured that one out.

quote:

---

Purpose is most definitely connected by function, only evolutionists deny this.

---

You are equivocating on the word 'purpose.' In English there are two (relevant) definitions of purpose. One definition involves intent. One definition concerns what an object does. To illustrate, take the sentence, "You did that on purpose." The 'purpose' in this case is 'intent.' You could instead say, "You did that intentionally." The sentence works just fine. But "You did that functionally." Just doesn't work. Likewise, it doesn't work the other way around either. "The capacitor's purpose is to do some electrical stuff." Substitute 'function' and the sentence works. Substiture 'intent' and it doesn't.

------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

Hi Phospho. Glad you decided to stick around. I suggest you re-read the abstract of that article. The authors make no assumptions whatsoever (in the article, anyway) about whether evolution has occurred or not. Here, let me quote the relevant portion for you again - the bit right after the sentence you disagreed with since it contained the word "evolution".

quote:

---

We show that the mother gene of the duplicated genes had already possessed a weak antiviral activity before duplication. After duplication, substitutions at two interacting sites (Arg-643Ser and Thr-1323Arg) resulted in a 13-fold enhancement of the ribonucleolytic activity of eosinophil-derived neurotoxin. These substitutions are also necessary for the potent antiviral activity, with contributions from additional amino acid changes at interacting sites. Our observation that a change in eosinophil-derived neurotoxin function occurs only when both interacting sites are altered indicates the importance of complementary substitutions...

---

Please note here that they are making an observation that they have discovered a "parent" gene that has a limited function, and which due to duplication and subsequent mutation, a "new" gene was formed that has a significant increase in functionality. I posted this reference not in the sense of showing evidence for evolution per se, but rather as a pretty obvious counter to your assertion that mutation cannot cause "beneficial" change. Here is an example - quite well documented - wherein a mutation enhanced the function of the pre-existing gene, without destroying its functionality.What I find interesting in your reply, especially in light of subsequent discussion on this thread (especially with Crashfrog), is that you quite specifically ignored the second reference I provided in that post (Orr 1995). In that article, Orr discusses how mutation can cause the development of allelic incompatibility in the hybrid zones of a graduated cline. IOW, he describes the genetic basis for reproductive isolation between two conjoined populations of a single species. Since it has been quite well-documented that reproductive isolation is the key to speciation, observing that genetic incompatibility is arising in the "mixing zone" between two populations of the same species is a significant indicator that the two populations are being viewed "at the instant of speciation".Since by your subsequent definitions "speciation" cannot occur, I think Orr provides an interesting counter.

Hi Phospho,I see this thread is getting extremely long and it becoming difficult to follow the various conversations others are having with you so I will focus only on posts I have addressed to you and you to me to simplify our interaction.Regarding your question about accessing the journal materials, the only way you can access the journals via the web is if your library has an online subscription. I would ask at the front desk if they get Nature and Science online and I will do my best to only refer to articles that are commonly available though it may not always be possible. In those cases I will summarize the authors conclusions and how they arrived at them....let me know if this is ok for you.Second, thank you for admitting that you have not had a biology education. I do not take issue with that but do take issue with you making definitive pronouncements about what science and scientists do i.e. you entire conspiratorial view of molecular biologists trying to promote false definitions of life on others as a practice....I will let you in on a little secret...about 99% of scientists don't give a damn about the public view of their work or have a desire to interact with the public the way I do, Taz does, SLPx does (if I am missing any other practicing scientist please feel free to rip into me .Now to your post:PLG: If I am understanding you correctly, you are talling about a neutral substitution, correct? In which case, it has no effect, and therefore I have no argument against this. My argument is against mutations that do have an affect.M: But you do have an argument against this. You originally stood by the concept that ALL mutations are deleterios....the real FACT is that most mutations are neutral or slightly deleterious and a small fraction are beneficial.PLG:
I agree. I must also state that variation is not an evolutionary concept at all. It was adopted by evolutionary theorists in an attempt to save their theory, but not even that has helped them except to the non-thinking masses (not directed at you).M: I encourage you to then actually read Darwin's Origin of Species as the entire theory and most of Darwin's writings were focused on variation. All evolutionary theorists including those pre-dating Darwin were drawing their conclusions based on observed variation within and among species....evolution is the study of variation over time.PLG: Again, if we define evolution simply as "change", then yes, population genetics is "evolution". But evolution is not simply change (playing word games again), it is about speciation. One organism giving rise to another different kind of organism altogether, and this has never been demonstrated as even a possibility. Every time this is addressed, it is addressed as speculation, and most often in "matter-of-fact" wording when the fact is not codified, nor can be.M: You are actually both playing with words and demonstrating a fatal misconception about evolution. First, if speciation is not change then what is your definition of change? Fixation of a specific allele in a population is as much a part of change as is speciation. Second, and this is one of the oldest creationist claims I have seen...that one organism has to turn into another...this is exactly what evolution says does NOT happen..at least not Darwinian....that is what Lamark and others proposed. Observed speciation events have been observed both in laboratory settings and in the wild:Schliewen UK, Tautz D, Paabo S. Related Articles, Links
Sympatric speciation suggested by monophyly of crater lake cichlids.
Nature. 1994 Apr 14;368(6472):629-32.My earlier post on bacteria also showed evolution over 20,000 generations.Savolainen R, Vepsalainen K. Related Articles, Links
Sympatric speciation through intraspecific social parasitism.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 May 9 [epub ahead of print]in den Bosch HA, Odierna G, Aprea G, Barucca M, Canapa A, Capriglione T, Olmo E.
Karyological and genetic variation in Middle Eastern lacertid lizards, Lacerta laevis and the Lacerta kulzeri complex: a case of chromosomal allopatric speciation.
Chromosome Res. 2003;11(2):165-78.There are many many more examples.But evolutionary theory DOES NOT hypothesize that your cat will turn into a dog.PLG:
What I meant was that the gene pool of a species has boundaries which the species cannot go beyond. This has been known and understood now for nearly 5,000 - 10,000 years of animal husbandry and breeding. As I understood from one of Mayr's books (I can't remember which one right off the top of my head), he acknowledged this fact and then went on to say that mutation originates variation which can push the species over the old gene pool limitations, opening the way for speciation and evolutionary furtherance.To date, I have not read any articles demonstrating that variation can add novelties to a species gene pool that can take it beyond those limits. Do you know of any?M: There are thousands of examples...however, you will have to show real evidence of a limit to the gene pool...this is just plain wrong..what is the limit then? How can that limit explain the old C value paradox? There appears to be no limits on variation in the gene pool that I have ever heard of or been aware of...as to novelties..there are thousands of examples but I will list one of my favorites:Mi S, Lee X, Li X, Veldman GM, Finnerty H, Racie L, LaVallie E, Tang XY, Edouard P, Howes S, Keith JC Jr, McCoy JM. Links
Syncytin is a captive retroviral envelope protein involved in human placental morphogenesis.
Nature. 2000 Feb 17;403(6771):785-9.This retroviral gene entered the primate gene pool and took over the function of syncitiotrophoblast formation and thus is largely responsible for proper placenta formation.Other examples are the tranmission of antibiotic resistance genes among bacteria by conjugation....It is actually rather hard to answer your questions as the premise is incorrect, there are no limits so I am not sure what you actually then mean by novelties beyond those limits..PLG:
OK, so here we go. The bacteria was still a bacteria, was it not? Then it did not speciate. Same goes for cichlids and all of the plants that have been shown to me thus far. The criteria on which the so-called "speciation" must be examined, and in most cases there are so many special circumstances as to warrant a "recall" in my mind.And when I say one species turning into another, I mean one species giving rise to another. I know one animal does not turn into another, so please do not insult my intelligence. This is the problem with evolutionary theory in general. Generalities are spoken when the issue is to avoid the specifics, and specifics are spoken when the issue is to avoid the generalites. Darwin did not wirte a thesis on change for change's sake, but in addressing speciation, therefore addressing evolution as speciation, not change. So why do modern evolutionists cling to "change" being evolution, when evolution is supposed to be all about explaining the origin of species? Genetic change does not give credence to evolution without definite, one-sided evidence, which it does not have.M: On the one hand, you say the bacteria are still bacteria...on the other hand you claim I am insulting your intelligence by claiming you think one organism does not turn into another and also make a completely incomrehensible statement like "And when I say one species turning into another, I mean one species giving rise to another. "Again, why is speciation not change? Do you expect a cichlid to speciate into a non-fish? That seems to be your definition of evolution. Loxodonta africana and Elephas maximus (African and Asian elephants respectively) are both elephants...they are genetically very similar, there was even one successful birth of a hybrid..well sort of successful..it died after 10 days...both are a different species...different genus in fact...if they were to speciate again they would not turn into cichlids..in fact, it has been discovered that the forest elephant, Loxodonta cyclotis, is genetically very different from the savanah elephants Loxodonta africana. They can interbreed but even when presented the opportunity they do not. Morhologically, the forest elephants are adapted to forest life to a mild degree...they are so genetically distinct that they are now given species level distinction..thus, a population of savanah elephants have adapted to the forest and have become genetically and morphologically distinct...this is how evolution works...not the an elephant species giving rise to a dog.PLG: Not so. I was saying that Mayr went outside the scientific method, I am saying that he was not doing science, but making up stories to suit his percieved needs in order to keep the theory alive.M: This is mere assertion..please support it...and while you are at it please show that you know how the scientific method works before you make such foolish assertions.PLG: I have heard of it, and you are missing one small detail. You cannot claim hox genes unless you are going to give some kind of evidence that they, too, can come about from nothing down the evolutionary pathway. This is typical, "matter-of-fact" statements such as the claw of this certain crab was modified from mouth parts in its ancestors. This is not a scientific explanation of anything, it is, instead, a matter-of-fact statement based upon the opinion of the writer, based upon the unconfirmed assumption that evolution is a fact of nature.M: This is a complete logical fallacy. First of all, you are muddling up abiogenesis with evolution because you are stating I have to know what the last common ancester Hox gene was to study Hox genes now which is just plain stupid. Second, I can trace the evolution of Hox genes from simple organisms to complex with the observed increase in complexity of the pathway...look up amphioxous for example..it has a relatively primitive Hox cluster and has a simple segmentation routine and compare to more complex organisms Hox clusters..this does not a priori assume evolution as you state. In the comparison the most parsimonious answer is common ancestry i.e. identity by descent i.e. evolution.....one does not a priori assume evolution is true and then bend the data to fit it...that is why you clearly have a warped and incorrect view of science and the scientific method.PLG:
I will say it again, and then I have to go for now. What needs to be done is the assumption of evolution needs to be dropped from science altogether - every reference to evolutionary theory - and then begin again from scratch. From step one, and then have the process heavily monitored so that it only sticks with the facts. New terminology would undoubtedly be developed, and some old terminology would undoubtedly be dropped.M: No, you have to drop your childish assumption that the big bad scientific establishment is out to get you personally. What you describe as the scientific method is absolutely ass backwards and actually fits much better with how relgious apologetics works...The theory of evolution was developed as the best explanation for the natural variation of life on the planet. It is supported by evidence from multiple varied disciplines from biology to paleontology...it is a theory because it is one of the best tested falsfiable hypotheses in the history of science..it is constantly being challenged by scientists today and revised accordingly..it has a more solid foundation than the theory of gravity or relativity. Thus, until their is a scientific reason presented in the form of data i.e. the genome sequence of a cichlid is more similar to marsupials than other fish would do a good job of killing off evolution..and genetic for that matter...there is no reason to revise science as you would have it.I am still waiting for you to describe how the scientific method works..in attempting your definiton could you include definitions for1: hypothesis
2: theory
3: fact
4: evolutionThroughout your posts to me and to others it is very clear to me that you may be confused about the meanings of each of these. I will be happy to discuss each one with you when you get the time.As to your lack of time and long pauses between posts, don't worry about it..I think everyone here understands that you cannot post here 24 hours a day. I personally would prefer a longer pause and a solid effort to address my questions and rebuttals than a quick response with less content...thus far you seem to be making an honest effort even though I completey disagree with you on most issues so I commend you for it.cheers,
M

I think you may have this backwards. Variation both between individuals and between populations of a given species was observed. The observation was made that two species of a given type of animal were much more similar the more close together they were geographically. The observation was made that utterly unrelated species could have similar morphology if they inhabited the same habitat type on opposite sides of the world. Finally, there were discoveries of the bones of long dead animals that were not related to - although possibly similar or suggestive of - any living organism. The theory of evolution was derived to explain these observations. The observations were not "adopted" - they formed the basis for the theory. That's a rather odd definition of speciation. You seem to be claiming that the only true speciation results in completely novel lifeforms. IOW, that "species" represents some kind of discrete entity - a class of objects with definable boundaries and specific properties - rather than a designation for an amorphous group of closely related organisms. The line separating species A from species B is often pretty arbitrary - and sometimes it doesn't even make sense. For instance, the leopard frog (Rana pipiens) has a range that extends from southern Florida to northern Minnesota. It's classified as a single species from one end of its range to the other. However, the physiology and behavior (one clutch per year in Minnesota, 3-4 clutches per year in Florida) of the northern populations (cold adaptation, hybernation, 1 clutch per year) is really vastly different from that of the southernmost populations (warm adaptation, year-round activity, 3-4 clutches). The extremes should really be considered different species, IMO - but what do I know? I'm not a taxonomist. However, be that as it may, I hope you are beginning to see why your demand inre speciation is unrealistic - it's simply not what's observed nor is it what evolutionary theory expects/requires. Interesting. Now your asking US to document something that shows the opposite of something only you claim exists? You'll need to provide the specific citation (or at least the source) for Mayr - I've read a fair amount of his work, and this doesn't ring any bells. As an alternative, please document the alleged barrier that supposedly separates taxa. I think I addressed the first part of this above. Evolution says nothing about "one species giving rise to another" if by this you mean saltation (frog giving birth to a turtle, for instance). You might be interested to know that Darwin didn't say anything about speciation - his book was about natural selection, adaptation, and descent with modification - in spite of the title.Beyond that, you've been given a fair amount of both the specifics AND the generalities of evolutionary theory. Could you please clarify exactly what it is that you want/expect, here? The generality is the applicability of evolutionary theory to biodiversity. The specifics are going to be case-dependent, but are all going to fit within that framework. I'm not clear on what the problem is. You're free to pick either/or or both.Modern evolutionists "cling to change" (as opposed to what, exactly, stasis? immutable "kinds"?), because that's what evolution is all about! The change from ancestral to the modern forms. You can look at it from the short-term (relatively speaking) perspective, in which case you are talking speciation, population dynamics, etc. Or you can talk about change in the long term covering the vastness of geological time (phylogenetic evolution). It's only when you try and blip back and forth between the two perspectives that you start getting into trouble... Again, you're going to need to provide a more complete reference on this claim. Where exactly did Mayr deviate from science? What specifically did he say? Context is everything in these discussions... This almost sounds like you're advocating reinventing the wheel. After all, the data - the raw observations - are out there, documented, and available. All you'd need to do really is take all of the observations that had been made - the brute facts, if you will - over the last 150 years or so, and come up with a new theory that tied them all together. If it could be shown that the new idea was a better one that the ToE - that it explained the facts and observations better - then I'd be among the first to pitch it. Maybe you could spend some time and do that. In the meantime, however, I think I'll stick with the idea that explains the majority of the data, thanks all the same.

Hang in there phospho. I agree with you entirely. salty

[As I said back in Message 169, I'll be deleting non-substantive posts in this thread from now on. That includes off-topic posts, too.

​

Non-substantive or off-topic post deleted. --Admin]

[This message has been edited by Admin, 05-21-2003]

quote:

---

I agree. I must also state that variation is not an evolutionary concept at all. It was adopted by evolutionary theorists in an attempt to save their theory, but not even that has helped them except to the non-thinking masses (not directed at you).

---

Yes it is directed at Crashfrog, and at everyone else who believes in evolution. If it is not directed at Crashfrog, then it isn't true. You said that variation saves evolutionary theory only to the non-thinking masses, but both Crashfrog and I didn't think it needed saving in the first place. By what you said, that makes us non-thinking.What's worse is that stats show your statement is the opposite of truth, anyway. Anti-evolutionism is what is popular with the non-thinking masses.According to a Gallup Poll (Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation) conducted in 1997 some 39% of U.S. citizens believe in creation. 54% believe evolution happened. That 54% is divided into 44% who are theistic evolutionists and 10% who believe God had nothing to do with it.Among scientists, however, it is quite a different story, with only 5% being creationists, and that other 34%, compared to the general population, switching to atheistic evolutionists. Theistic evolutionists stay about the same among scientists as among the general population.The end result, Phosph, is that the unthinking masses turn out to be creationists! This result is shown even more clearly by the following stats.Percent of Creationists:College graduates: 25%
No High School Diploma: 65%Income over 50,000: 29%
Income under 20,000: 59%You might be prone to quote the Scripture that says, "Not many wise..." but remember it's you who said the unthinking masses were fooled by variation as an argument for evolution. There have been a lot of inaccurate things proposed on these forums, but very little that is as insulting and inaccurate together as what you said.[edited to add link to poll]Paul[This message has been edited by truthlover, 05-20-2003]